John Richardson

[Herlock Sholmes]

As not to go over old ground again herlock its possible , according the evidence cadoash heard the ''No'' from another direction , remember he couldnt say which yard it came from . The 'noise against the fence could aslo have been from a number of different things, we just dont know ,or can say with any certainty that it was Annie Chapman due to the uncertainty of the all the evidence at hand.

When we assess Cadosch we see that he was certainly more cautious about the word ‘no.’ So what does that suggest? Someone that presents unsupported points as true when they might have been wrong? I wouldn’t say so would you? Or a liar? Why would he be cautious when telling a lie? He might as well have just said “I heard the ‘no’ and it definitely came from number 29” The fact that he was cautious surely shouldn’t be used against him? His first impression was that it had come from number 29 but he wouldn’t say for certain. But on the noise he had absolutely no doubt that he was correct.

So if he was reasonable and circumspect for the ‘no’ why would he be ‘throw caution to the wind’ on the noise. It makes little sense Fishy. We certainly can’t assume that he was truthful or lying but from what we can read I’d say the evidence points toward honesty and him being correct. You might (and probably will) disagree of course and that’s fine of course.

[DJA]

What agenda does Fleetwood Mac purportedly have?

[Herlock Sholmes]

We dont know what herlock, just like we dont know it was Annie Chapman for sure . Like i suggested any number of different things .

Can you name something that might provide an alternative explanation please?

[FISHY1118]

When we assess Cadosch we see that he was certainly more cautious about the word ‘no.’ So what does that suggest? Someone that presents unsupported points as true when they might have been wrong? I wouldn’t say so would you? Or a liar? Why would he be cautious when telling a lie? He might as well have just said “I heard the ‘no’ and it definitely came from number 29” The fact that he was cautious surely shouldn’t be used against him? His first impression was that it had come from number 29 but he wouldn’t say for certain. But on the noise he had absolutely no doubt that he was correct.

So if he was reasonable and circumspect for the ‘no’ why would he be ‘throw caution to the wind’ on the noise. It makes little sense Fishy. We certainly can’t assume that he was truthful or lying but from what we can read I’d say the evidence points toward honesty and him being correct. You might (and probably will) disagree of course and that’s fine of course.

I can only go by the uncertainty of his testimony herlock the ''NO'' was not definitve as to which yard it came from therefor it just cant be assumed to have come from 29 for certain.

The noise however was certain , but that noise in itself isnt proof either that it was Annie Chapman or her killler hitting the fence .

Like i said the witness testmony is to be considered just as uncertain , unsafe in trying to predict a t.o.d as is Dr Phillips .

[Trevor Marriott]

I can only go by the uncertainty of his testimony herlock the ''NO'' was not definitve as to which yard it came from therefor it just cant be assumed to have come from 29 for certain.

The noise however was certain , but that noise in itself isnt proof either that it was Annie Chapman or her killler hitting the fence .

Like i said the witness testmony is to be considered just as uncertain , unsafe in trying to predict a t.o.d as is Dr Phillips .

The word no on its own causes a problem cadosch was in the yard long enough to have surely heard conversation prior to him hearing the word no or any conversation that followed him hearing the word no.

If it were the killer and Chapman then that shows at that point she was still alive, and if someone was being murdered would she not utter other words other than the word no, and she must have likley as not struggled before succumbing to death in which case Cadosch would have surely heard a lot more than no and a bang against the fence, which given the type of fence as has been decsribed he would have been able to see if anybody was the other side of the fence and through it.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[GBinOz]

And with a nod to John G who posted this on a previous thread. More medical expertise to be disputed and dismissed.

" Using it (digestion) as a guide to time of death, however, is theoretically unsound and presents many practical difficulties, although it may have limited applicability in some exceptional instances." (Stomach contents and the time of death. Rexamination of a persistent question, Jaffe FA. AM J Forensic Med Pathol. 1989.)

Kaul et al. 2017 also found wide variations. For instance, in respect of partial gastric emptying in females was found in 24.07% of cases up to 4 hours duration, 37.04% from 4-6 hours, and 54.55% 6-10 hours, 47.33% more than 10 hours.

……

Payne- James, 2003, gives a figure of 1-3 hours for gastric emptying in respect of a small meal. However, there are many physiological and psychological factors "which contribute to the great intra- and inter-individual variability of gastric emptying. Estimations, considering all circumstances, should only be made with great reservation." (ibid)

Thus, Payne-James refers to case where stomach contents were found post mortem 11 days after poly-trauma. See: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...ptying&f=false

Hi Herlock,

You have presented a more than adequate sufficiency of references to show how the medical estimates of the time were totally unreliable and inadequate. When asked how the estimates for Nicholls, Stride and Eddowes were anything but unreliable and inadequate, the answer is that the doctors scuttled about finding out what the answer was and then presented that as their estimate. So lets just say that Phillips was wrong with Chapman because he found out the answer in advance and......oh, no, wait.

I noticed in one of your posts your referred to only two of the witnesses with regard to reliability. Can I take that to mean that you have abandoned Long as a serious witness? If we choose to look at Cadosch, which version of his story will we examine. In his first version he heard voices, rustling of clothes, a scuffle and a bump against the fence. This would be the most believable. Annie is attacked and cries "no', a scuffle and she falls against the fence. Version two has the cry of "no" on his trip to the toilet and the bump on the fence on the return to the house. Cadosch said he was ill so he must have spent at least a few minutes sitting on the throne. Did Jack freeze frame waiting for him to return before pushing Annie down on the fence? Version three gets even better. Trip one to the toilet for the cry of "no", return to the house, 3-4 minutes later another trip to the toilet with the fall against the fence as he is entering the door on his return trip to the building. Given that he must have spent some time on his toilet activities, that is a very long scuffle for a killer that garrotted or throat cut his victim and mutilated them in a matter of minutes.

So why didn't Cadosch just stick to his original story. This is where the unreliability of memory comes into play. I did post examples of modern thinking on this topic but you seem to prefer to present evidence for the lack of confidence in medical testimony rather than addressing this aspect. I will concede that modern opinion is that medical estimates for ToD were limited to the science of the day, but we cannot then make a logic leap to claiming that therefore the witnesses are correct. Nit picking minor differences I hear you say? A series of story changes is symptomatic of the shifting of reality during memory retrieval and can feel like the truth to the person involved. On the other hand they may just be lying. People do that. Have you heard the one about Santa? The thing about Cadosch as a witness is that he didn't think anything unusual was going on, and he was there, and that seemed to exasperate both the coroner and the jury.

Cheers, George

[FISHY1118]

Can you name something that might provide an alternative explanation please?

[Coroner] It is not usual to hear thumps against the palings? - They are packing-case makers, and now and then there is a great case goes up against the palings. I was thinking about my work, and not that there was anything the matter, otherwise most likely I would have been curious enough to look over.

This may of course be one possible alternative ,but lets put it into context ,we dont know the position of such packing cases on that morning or how they were or were not stacked ,were they on a what angle did a piece of one or part of one fall off and hit the fence ? there could be a number of different scenarios relating to any number of forien objects that could have mad that noise, we just dont know for sure what it was just as we cant be sure based on the evidence at hand that it was certainly annie chapman .

Fwiw , i live in a unit backing on to a group of factorys one such business stackes its palletts and building suppies up against the fence every day, they remove the once a month. Let me tell you from experience, ive heard things fall and make a noise at different hours of the day and night on more than one accasion . Its not as out of the question as you might think .

[FISHY1118]

The word no on its own causes a problem cadosch was in the yard long enough to have surely heard conversation prior to him hearing the word no or any conversation that followed him hearing the word no.

If it were the killer and Chapman then that shows at that point she was still alive, and if someone was being murdered would she not utter other words other than the word no, and she must have likley as not struggled before succumbing to death in which case Cadosch would have surely heard a lot more than no and a bang against the fence, which given the type of fence as has been decsribed he would have been able to see if anybody was the other side of the fence and through it.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I think we agree Trevor in regards to witness testimony being uncertain when trying to determind .t.o.d .

[FISHY1118]

Which is rare i might add

[FISHY1118]

Hi Herlock,

You have presented a more than adequate sufficiency of references to show how the medical estimates of the time were totally unreliable and inadequate. When asked how the estimates for Nicholls, Stride and Eddowes were anything but unreliable and inadequate, the answer is that the doctors scuttled about finding out what the answer was and then presented that as their estimate. So lets just say that Phillips was wrong with Chapman because he found out the answer in advance and......oh, no, wait.

I noticed in one of your posts your referred to only two of the witnesses with regard to reliability. Can I take that to mean that you have abandoned Long as a serious witness? If we choose to look at Cadosch, which version of his story will we examine. In his first version he heard voices, rustling of clothes, a scuffle and a bump against the fence. This would be the most believable. Annie is attacked and cries "no', a scuffle and she falls against the fence. Version two has the cry of "no" on his trip to the toilet and the bump on the fence on the return to the house. Cadosch said he was ill so he must have spent at least a few minutes sitting on the throne. Did Jack freeze frame waiting for him to return before pushing Annie down on the fence? Version three gets even better. Trip one to the toilet for the cry of "no", return to the house, 3-4 minutes later another trip to the toilet with the fall against the fence as he is entering the door on his return trip to the building. Given that he must have spent some time on his toilet activities, that is a very long scuffle for a killer that garrotted or throat cut his victim and mutilated them in a matter of minutes.

So why didn't Cadosch just stick to his original story. This is where the unreliability of memory comes into play. I did post examples of modern thinking on this topic but you seem to prefer to present evidence for the lack of confidence in medical testimony rather than addressing this aspect. I will concede that modern opinion is that medical estimates for ToD were limited to the science of the day, but we cannot then make a logic leap to claiming that therefore the witnesses are correct. Nit picking minor differences I hear you say? A series of story changes is symptomatic of the shifting of reality during memory retrieval and can feel like the truth to the person involved. On the other hand they may just be lying. People do that. Have you heard the one about Santa? The thing about Cadosch as a witness is that he didn't think anything unusual was going on, and he was there, and that seemed to exasperate both the coroner and the jury.

Cheers, George

Impressive point George , i do recall mentioning the other Drs t.o.d. estimates and the accuracy attacted to them . Which somehow that ment,.. your words ''finding out the answers'' One might ask why didnt phillips just tow the party line so to speak and agrree with the witnesses and except 5.30am and therefor claim a t.o.d of 1 hour ?

[Doctored Whatsit]

Hi Herlock,

You have presented a more than adequate sufficiency of references to show how the medical estimates of the time were totally unreliable and inadequate. When asked how the estimates for Nicholls, Stride and Eddowes were anything but unreliable and inadequate, the answer is that the doctors scuttled about finding out what the answer was and then presented that as their estimate. So lets just say that Phillips was wrong with Chapman because he found out the answer in advance and......oh, no, wait.

I noticed in one of your posts your referred to only two of the witnesses with regard to reliability. Can I take that to mean that you have abandoned Long as a serious witness? If we choose to look at Cadosch, which version of his story will we examine. In his first version he heard voices, rustling of clothes, a scuffle and a bump against the fence. This would be the most believable. Annie is attacked and cries "no', a scuffle and she falls against the fence. Version two has the cry of "no" on his trip to the toilet and the bump on the fence on the return to the house. Cadosch said he was ill so he must have spent at least a few minutes sitting on the throne. Did Jack freeze frame waiting for him to return before pushing Annie down on the fence? Version three gets even better. Trip one to the toilet for the cry of "no", return to the house, 3-4 minutes later another trip to the toilet with the fall against the fence as he is entering the door on his return trip to the building. Given that he must have spent some time on his toilet activities, that is a very long scuffle for a killer that garrotted or throat cut his victim and mutilated them in a matter of minutes.

So why didn't Cadosch just stick to his original story. This is where the unreliability of memory comes into play. I did post examples of modern thinking on this topic but you seem to prefer to present evidence for the lack of confidence in medical testimony rather than addressing this aspect. I will concede that modern opinion is that medical estimates for ToD were limited to the science of the day, but we cannot then make a logic leap to claiming that therefore the witnesses are correct. Nit picking minor differences I hear you say? A series of story changes is symptomatic of the shifting of reality during memory retrieval and can feel like the truth to the person involved. On the other hand they may just be lying. People do that. Have you heard the one about Santa? The thing about Cadosch as a witness is that he didn't think anything unusual was going on, and he was there, and that seemed to exasperate both the coroner and the jury.

Cheers, George

Hi George,

Your first question pointing out the reliability of ToD estimates in the case of Nichols, Stride and Eddowes is simplicity to answer. In the Eddowes case, Inspector Collard reported, "the blood was in a liquid state, not congealed". In the Stride case PC Lamb mentioned that some blood was congealed, and some liquid. In the Nichols case, PC Neil reported, "blood was oozing from a wound in the throat". These virtually didn't require a police surgeon's opinion at all, just how many minutes! These murders were very recent. The Chapman murder bore no resemblance whatever to these, and required a genuine, and inevitably approximate calculation. And an estimate on site which Phillips himself voluntarily chose to put a large question mark against at the inquest.

Although I personally admit to reservations about the testimony of both Cadosch and Long, I do not necessarily accept that Cadosch or Richardson for that matter, changed their stories. We can safely assume that both Richardson and Cadosch gave detailed statements to the police. We do not have these statements, nor do we have any statements from interviewing officers, nor any evidence from official sources, that these two said anything different in their final statements from their original ones. What I assume that you are using is garbled accounts in newspapers where journalists may have "sexed up" a weakish story to make it worthwhile, or may have got partial information from someone who overheard a conversation etc. We cannot claim that casual newspaper tittle-tattle is evidence of changing stories.

[Trevor Marriott]

Which is rare i might add

Well is nice to see you are finally coming around to my way of thinking, all we want now is Herlock to do the same and its case closed

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Harry D]

The word no on its own causes a problem cadosch was in the yard long enough to have surely heard conversation prior to him hearing the word no or any conversation that followed him hearing the word no.

If it were the killer and Chapman then that shows at that point she was still alive, and if someone was being murdered would she not utter other words other than the word no, and she must have likley as not struggled before succumbing to death in which case Cadosch would have surely heard a lot more than no and a bang against the fence, which given the type of fence as has been decsribed he would have been able to see if anybody was the other side of the fence and through it.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I know this theory has been posited before, but perhaps someone encountered Annie's corpse. They tried to move the body, check for signs of life, saw the ghastly mutilations and let go in horror. That would explain the "No!" in disbelief, and the slump against the fence.

Why did this person(s) never come forward? Well, they might have been venturing into the yard for unsavory reasons themselves and didn't want to be questioned by police.

[Doctored Whatsit]

I know this theory has been posited before, but perhaps someone encountered Annie's corpse. They tried to move the body, check for signs of life, saw the ghastly mutilations and let go in horror. That would explain the "No!" in disbelief, and the slump against the fence.

Why did this person(s) never come forward? Well, they might have been venturing into the yard for unsavory reasons themselves and didn't want to be questioned by police.

A possibility which cannot be ruled out, I think.

[Abby Normal]

I know this theory has been posited before, but perhaps someone encountered Annie's corpse. They tried to move the body, check for signs of life, saw the ghastly mutilations and let go in horror. That would explain the "No!" in disbelief, and the slump against the fence.

Why did this person(s) never come forward? Well, they might have been venturing into the yard for unsavory reasons themselves and didn't want to be questioned by police.

hi Harry
i suppose its possible...but that idea covers cadosch but not Long, and besides it involves including a "phantom" witness of which there just isnt any evidence for.
Does this scenario also explain richardson not seeing the body because the murder happens after hes already been there?
and what does it say about when the murder took place re phillips TOD?